About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Fung 16, Mr. Sanchez 2, Honda 2, Hwang 2, Appeals 1, The Board 's 1, Pagination 1, P & C 1, Andd & 9k 1, & R & K. 1, Appellantm 1, Board 1, California 1, Lazarus 1, Us 1, San Francisco 1, Thatqd 1, Starbucks Andañk 1, Unit Account Verificationy8v1 & Grs 1, Publicc 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    January 2, 2013
    4:30 - 5:00am PST  

4:30am
units down to two units. and a notice of special restrictions were recorded but recorded against the>c9kñz the wrong property description so that my clients, when they bought the property some years later, had no notice of the notice of special restrictions reducing the property building count from three units to two.ap3y since ouruaüearing we discovered pg&e documents clearly showing that after that notice of special restriction wasoa recorded and after the building permit wasés%( issued reducing it from three k,8ñ units to two units pg&e was issued permits to install four electrical meters on the property, three gas meters on the property and we alsoy:::wx have uncovered, from the department of building inspection records,? .b its own certificate ofm?g completion and occupancya nzl in 1980 -- excuse me, in 1999,
4:31am
years following the previous@$jpd owner's building permit reducing it from three units to two. i'd like to show you this, if i could. this:jp$e÷ document clearly says the certificate of final completion of occupancy dwelling unit three. you can see right<::zw÷ here. because of these new facts -- >> vice president fung: can we see that again please. >> yes, sirct three dwelling units. >> vice president fung: i'm looking for the date. september >> 1999. >> vice president fung: okay. >> because of this, because of these new items of evidence we think a rehearing isá%($ñ necessary so this matter may be fully1ojp$át adjudicated and the truth arrived at to determine this matter more accurately. extraordinary circumstances exist because tenants are going to lose theirc
4:32am
residence if we don't have a rehearing on this matter. thank you very!09k&2 much. >> vice president fung: onenwk,,aq additional question. on your brief, the way the pagination occurred, i'ms assuming that on page 6, the fourth electrical meter was cjéñe 1f that correct? >> yes. and no gas meter for that. >> and i have a$@%( and these documents the pg&e documis'8da that you're referring to, these could not have been obtained prior to this why? >> we were tryingm6nnz1ñ for a long time to get pg&e documents. they were requesting a subpoena. we were trying to explain to them that the board of appeals. we hadqz8b noy subpoena and it was through extraordinary measures, letters, phone calls that we were able to get the pg&e records fromúñ1k,oóm.
4:33am
>> when did you receive them? >> i got them twot4 >> thank you. >> any other questions? thank ("ç you. >> president hwang: mr. sanchez. >> thankxh scott sanchez, planning department. just to note, the hearing that we had on this item was on november 7. the rehearing request was filed on our response would have been due on november 26, which is the same day that8& appellant received information from pg&e, at least that's what the records are dated so we did not receive the -- m0jpd until earlyb'( o0 1"ujttjt 4, after we had our ability to submit a response. first pg&e records are not evidence of a legality -- or of a legal unit. the appellantm.nív÷ has stated they bought the property in 1997. at the time they bought it, it was a four unit building. however i would note according to records they provided the4( -<
4:34am
fourth electric meter wasn't added untilu0 for each electric unit, would they argue they have four units on the property? i think that's an open question. again it's not evidenc%i í=ñ of a legal unit. we go by the records of the building inspection. as stated inaj hearing we believe there was an error in the records. there was a cfc4#b!ñbç issued to reduce the number of units from three to two. the reduction of number of units was required in order to subdivide the lot and to create new housing. so there are new buildings that were built, two unit buildings that were built on subdivided lots. reduction in the units from three to two was a requirement and stipulation of that. it n lot number. that lot number was super seeded seeded subdivision of the lot. that's where that issue came up.
4:35am
it is clear from the department of building records that they have permits to go from three to two. there84ij two to three. the application that was referenced which we haven't seen 'til this evening that stated 1999hxjo that building permit application, as wasrpjlb noted in our initial appeal brief was to add new door and dormer -- roof area, replace window. it noted there code building department occupancy code aree doesn't mean three units,o$jd#that means a one or two unit building. i can understand the confusion because thatch interpretation of the appellant which in fact there this is a one or two unit building. that proves our position that it was in fact3&b $r a two;ojmg unit building. also i would note building use was filled out as a one family dwelling. if they can provide evidence ofó0::8 y a building permit=,bfm application reviewed by the san francisco planning department and approved at ajkb!f dwelling unit which
4:36am
wouldn't have been allowed because the zoning would have limited it to two units(jp/i but had!jpdq third unit been allowed it would haveze+v3i required neighborhood notification, they have would have had to meet requirements for open:: space, exposure, parking. there'sg0 with that i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> vice president fung: were you aware of that 1999 permit? >> yes. it was referenced, and i included a summary of that in our appeal brief for the initial hearing. and i know that the -- they're relyingz/g third unit. and at the previous hearing we specifically asked them for evidence that they have a permit to that there was actually -- it was clear they did get a -- report when they acquired the property it was clear from the permit history that it was two units at the time they acquired it. >> vice president fung: i don't recall seeing that 1999 permit that he put on the overhead. >> i included a summary of it. we haven't actually seen the
4:37am
actual permit that isl# but i did include a< theg9k3, building department records in our appeal brief. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public >> vice president fung: how about building!x they want to commentqjpb7 on that'2jpd permit? >> if you havei it's not mandatory. >>7/16 the certificate of final1&c completion that was brought up on the overhead, i'd like to see the permit that goes with that because i think that permit, as mr. sanchez rightly stated, that permit should have went from two units to three units. and there's just so much confusion with this but it doesn't seem it's right that certificateé# of final completion. i contacted>fv3d after the hearing and offered him through the building department unit verification process which usually is more in
4:38am
depth. it brings up water department records, city assessment records, all of the building&f9iú departments so we can lay it out and see what we have. from what i've seen on the brief at the previous hearing we don't have a full picture here and there's obviously -- i can see errors with the permit -- the application, and the cfc where we had axj v single family é3 on the application, a nn-q cfc permit that says three units. so it needs to]lb be cleared up, but -- and i offered him to go through the unit verification. so i'm available -- >> thatqd,bc offer accepted? >> yes i believe -- >> vice president fung: and the results? >> we haven't started itç1 >> whenç<-(dój was the hearing? what was the date of the -- >> we're actually meeting tomorrow morning. >> but when was the prior hearing? i can't remember. nof 7.1q1 and you offered it the day after andhe tomorrow? >> yeah. it's a little differenty'nnñh from
4:39am
-- i don't think it -- it probably may not make a difference to this but it takes a while to get it all together, youb&j-5eñ know and get it set up. we just had scheduling conflicts whatever and we're -- the :seçi attorney and me are meeting oc >>(c is there any public comment? seeing no public comment, commissioners, the matter is submittedsfe$m. >> well my opinion is that we should grant then>qcvñ÷2b c04<]c request. in my mind, it's more of an issue of manifest injust if we don't clear up some of thedlc confusion more than -- i don't know the relevance if there is any relevance to the pg&e records and whether this would be based63f would be willing to revote for a rehearing based on that there may be manifest injustice if we
4:40am
don't straighten out some of these facts. >> i agree with the commissioner. after going throughhc9 paperwork it was a -- they got a three to two and mysteriously it became a three again. so there's some ?9k,' question ing6on there;m there's no question three became two÷0b!r then there's aaccá2kutáurjz how two became threey >> vice president fung: the other way to approach this is to continue this and let them go through their unit pa2 count verification process and then see the results ofzw.nn-c%s ,r that. >> we've required thatdc completed2c:s it we approve a(j(/ rehearing? >> vice president fung: or we"4! could just continuezecz this particular request. >> is that the way to!ck%lñ go? >>n& we can grant the rehearing and at#í'z4qs point of the rehearingmspcx'
4:41am
we could condition having this process taken#onns place. that would be radio hearing. >> i think i would prefer to have a substantive rehearing. i think that would be theféj6# q procedure here. especially since i -- at least i wasn't present. i mean i did watch the video but=nn yyou do gain some benefit from hearing?c arguments,i pañ and= áhearing both sides on aí so i would prefer thatrbú. and so i would move to grant the rehearing request%.nnañ÷ basedh +h!÷/f::88ñ on that there may bew !u manifest injustice based on the testimony here today, andd&9k÷ that we set1w6 hearing, i guesso%( i"ñ. >> so we need?c!,b to pick a hearingló9k,w: p &c"p% right now,íj[ñ we are scheduling7=::>[t andpjp$f appeals that comecj-1ñ thezjple office are being scheduled for
4:42am
februaryysufd i would recommend that date just for the board's0ä calendar. february 20. >> vice president fung: or perhaps we can ask department -- howj+-k(jt does this: unit account verificationy8v1&grs,.nrñ take? >> i would say probably four to six weeks, would be --h2 six weeks to be on thebv!d conservative sidehonn to give us time to get everything together. >>úk needed in order#;ba4ñ to allow>b» the papers to be prepared, briefing to happen after thehpmla9epf verification takes place. >> early march? march 20? >> i would say march 20 might be... >> $ >> so is that the date then in the÷gg:z's motion? >> yes(ç &jz nná8b. >>wi::nñ so the motion then is to grant the request on the basis of possible manifest injustice with a new hearing dates of
4:43am
march 20, 2013. on that motion, vice president fung,9 president hwang, aye. commissioner lazarus aye. commissioner honda, aye. (ú$>c#k2i-that motion isad,bhó granted. the board's prior decision is thrown fresh with a new briefing and a new hearing date on march 20,.,b 2013. thank you% 5 $jpi>w . 4-c rehearing request regarding subject property at 150 california street, the board received a letter from second street merchants requesting rehearing of appeal 12-126d,b!mh-!m decided november 147mk,7÷ 2012. at the time the board votedl 2-2-1, to uphold them(c mobile food facility permit on
4:44am
the basis that the salekój expresso drinks is not like food under dpw's guidelines. three out of four pãvotes being required to modify a departmental action when vacancy exists the permit wasu <';oç operation. my understanding is that commissioner honda, who is not a member of the board at thatb time, has reviewed the video and is preparedbq >> commissioner honda: i have reviewed the video and am ready to participate. >> we will start with theé[ requester. threerw >> allison rowe from harvest and rowe. my -- is=bib feet --e review tab 13 of the appeal to see photos that- that -- ism front. 90% of our morning business 5 exactly the same product and we have six direct competitors
4:45am
nearby. it menus are compared to a%5v3fprm0w3 coffee second and fronted are not underserved in5f: primary hot spots and the last thing wenv the mobile!78b.c food law says a permit is valid if the applicant hasá4w3 it(sáq" fraudulent statements of fact. under oath and in writings& admitted major disclosures. you haveñic ÷ hearing. we are here to prevent manifestax@!0; injustice. we have seven new pieces/ n>k of evidence. first, this is the truck. it violates permits condition five5c((s thaig service cannot take place on a sidewalk. this service takespcégs#2o exclusively on the sidewalk. >> canñ k-[÷ you1o%( 0wjt so that it comes up. thankjvg;v:m there isjaçx nowhere to)t,úps put the structure with"jú=e a physical%d%( ;aç overhang.
4:46am
the>y there is nowhere to park because of traffic due to construction. two7 ny 33#+%( discounted in marchguáñ+ and november they -- starbucks as if they don't matter. this is starbucks objection$ letter andñ%( úf they also claimed there was only one p competitor -- # muffins. muffins is 270 feet away and objected. three, in march public works said they would check coffee in the neighborhood. in approximate%m learned public completed a thorough study. f9tqñey concluded novmk,"u similar product exists and5gklzó we can't understand how. this is=2 it only mats starbucks andañk,,a pete's. compare the study. '!f four many businesses were not notified. and.q addresses that do not&p where the truck will park.tr=tzsx
4:47am
royal exchange on front objects. they were not notified and they strongly object. coffeeç!.o closet on front and sack is 300 feet and.ubhbw was notified. their application for; h%( js a -- includedm.c the and they claim they will add to the tax basevd exempt. please revoke this permit because they have not told the truth and we have given you newtfg: evidence.o::ñc anb@i$$(u+hjt thç photoz79k,m >>!,úa commissioners, do you want to accept thea. photos? >> vice president fung:s1 wants$2.1÷fg speak for the!ltj @&c"p% group, buta6 was one shortac h6c 5bc1t there's nomg "az detail. is(i! the -- is there seatingh-jx+ related to this truck? >> well, surrounding restaurants have$sp6d+f
4:48am
>> vice president fung: l i understand. is that what your reference was? i wasn'tk,xy quite clear on that. >>pmcô no i don't recall exactly[jpç where. >> vic%ñ!,juyy7t fung:'( ÷ questions? >>:w no other questions. thank2t ÷y/ >> welcome to the -- time forr additional comment?unz >> no. that was three minutes per side and that was yourj so the time now islv::: for the permit holder. you have three minutes, if you could just wait a minute until the clerk sets the timer.w] thank9o4"yha! oú younnlw9"jpalñ %( g÷. gocn >> goodjv'n3÷ evening. my name is debbie and i'm here again onoj9 i i7jdólx behalf ofps9kexñ9%( client.
4:49am
history of the permit to date. as you know, the6úe;6 motionsr rehearing shallm qt not be granted unless you determine there is a manifest injustice that has taken place<íjñ or where shown that>z: new different materialsbz9v2çp or facts orb circumstances have arigp since6!g2÷ the time of thejpy where such facts orí circumstances if it known at the time could have affected#-jd5ua5 the outcome of the 1x hearing. you decided on: ei-uphold the mobilet permit based on therc of the public works code and dpw's guidelines for the issuance,ábioj of7év2l mobile food facility permits. whether like foods exist within 300<, exist dpw may still approve the proposal subjectúq conditions they plan to impose and iná" fact they did impose new-b!0q conditions which is the trucktu'nññ hadhd]xsm9k mkxrdj it worked as6e supervisors expected it to0m they enacted legislation and
4:50am
both dpw and my client did everything they were supposed to do.y evenfi express example given is that like foods don't include a coffee cart inf whichdoa that we're in. my client@• has invested almost 100,000 and a ]$jqp@.bvi (ráh smjiy mq9 9 ÷ how the lawjpézhouldçajim work. absolutely none of the, quote unquote new has been brought forward byuá$ appellants is in fact new information. all#%(@4 of it either wass rp &c @&c"p% by then before or could have been brought up by them before the date of the!j+v34e hearing on november uk-1f9 14@xj;g. citizen;q verification form they had, that was0hb( and has been rectified. the truck design in ji brief we said we would be using the truck at the locationáecz4n!auqz0ñ theyd5nv identified. dpw has on its website the guidelines it uses an'v3 about composition of menu.
4:51am
youghad them%( jp%m menus before you and thid opportunity to talk about them. they talk about construction on thet site the construction has been ongoingl.c 14th. they talk about a mobile food facility laws,.ñpnññ measurementj-c inconsistenciesáí9!35 dpw's quawification to÷7::n/ make these determines buti?b!ow we ask6ó consider --:,e/çl111a%w that you allow the the board of superviso+;::w intended, and.t!<ç] to allow my client who hasj great deal of money on]v permit to go forward and try to operate his vehicle. one other request thatú&bçl i might have is that ifej there's public comment appellants, and:pb>í0 u+ 1zs-npx8.njc÷ib!t[d4"our=
4:52am
>> j1dáóo 9!lk commissioners. john kwan from theo public works. >>w thata/xb1 microphone&:npñ working? >>-?1!cm÷ i hope so. sure. >> okayvpá' >> goodmjpmb john kwan from the department of public bz[ñ works. $!kz@ reviewing the two]%( áz distinct briefs from the appellant and the#c: b 4v÷k,lir applicant really doesc information that we can add, except in this case that8:9kvpbpz÷ -c over!,ró the7qk,liñgfk,lsl bathroomoopf issue, the bathroom issue -- the sanitation certificate is issued k,!fory4" ñfpj department of --&éd!b theq99klg department of healtpçqz z in thisc0és specificgpij6 case. the department of publicc,b÷ works!e received said py certificate from departmentzvp"!ñ of public health. and5háchange or notification"y!,vñ from the department of public health, we hold as1( sñ correct. so ins:÷s case, iy/jpttj!@v
4:53am
without additional information0(c÷uzmn either suspension orc:::1 revocation orc#)r'g3 sanitation permits that we believe that it is true andhvc accurate, specifically $ specific case. therejpss::q to( qú likeqxuñ foodfr food facilities permits issued by the policeubfjñ department. the police =i department tooky positionk$ food of like food ofou%($ that2u9k,>s the restriction was you can't be within'y((!x)i 600 feet which is what th+ stated. legislation under mobile food facilities permit]71!?:ñ changed that legislation to say we will consider like foods. and itf?&;hbñ is weightedizc pzw zeh to ensure that it is fair andr>b-"$mj4qr uniform, in this case, this what the department did not only the legislation but the p director's ord'g8 k d
4:54am
evaluation. >> vice president fung:4mklp mk lky thejn« d ifx)( bwc there it looks like both sides of the street are+z being reconstructed in to7#::7cg8biysnr >>jpz according to the codea#nnnf and what been, if there's af>k sitej&( éj andw,,<;ñ the applicant)x nuo needs to0ú move we will work with the applicant alternative location. however atd the constrg=) back to the original location. >> vice president fung:5,b6the second question is -- don't recall usmq!tpt discussing it iny2ññ $ itd'r(&r&k.tht atth"d/u the hearing --;m::nñ to what degree doesc department, when they review these, look at existing sidewalk?6:z41ñ seating, withi::ñzy respect to your4jpb
4:55am
clearances sidewalkr(b!>!rñ9k, 0j furniture -- in other words in termso other things? >>ñrb)z1ij u in:e5-5úq this31!ál specific case,h u is very6( #-e comparabl cafezc the edge of#%( ," the cafe tableh"c chairs top maintains a sixóé of travel. similarly we look at the exact!kr same thing related tovc foods when they set up. and that we aska p t.2ix.ñ a diagram specifically, and alsor layout -- this wassvp7 also previously discussed onçg4 i other food3 to this board in the where the the be+innju food facility wouldññ3flb ensure that theqide9y people line up inr?kç such path of travelg!t ! @ñng,, >> thankajçj< gt you.nn
4:56am
we willlmnnle take public comment nowc6 ix on this0!,qvñ it]!ñh and as was1#xk-5+-k-4 noted, please stept#:zqñ forward. if you cabñ noted if you're affiliated to the parties on this appeal you are note! entitled to speak under publicajpi9%ñvj >>ñ and>a9i!65#u thisj%(d year we signedr&9k,óz÷ a release atb this particular locationb" included a7ry[hbp÷ j-1ay5whffñ=eu guarantee5séa for[ myself. over the past 18éavt(ájnjb8g.5) location we've invested over3ñhff r,b2mn 400,000 lease hold improvements.#hffoçcjp1f over we've paid over 4 million in salaries and benefits qc e+bdz employees. we have paidpes
4:57am
thousands in terms of fees$!jr andfpvp+-g: property tax1"c! and salesxepx%cj thisp$( ju is our investment inxbp location our investment in the(nj+]k then[ö2) mortar food4%jp# ypcz service.- mobile truck operators are mobile for a reason. if!%( mobile. i am a capitalist. i believee%qc to do business. howeverpñ8b'yr the city in granting the permit under current guidelines÷r9kg3ñ andú for whatever purpose not clear to me undermine thevm and mortarwq the city through dpw have changed>nb! succeeded in[9k"ñáo-zv operators against brick and0,b'hnoc mortar0 h b my/]xñ apologies for failingixkpñ5ñ to attend the initial hearing ofczj2c this permit,x eb was because atdá8v[:# the location thatt31!:ç waszj9knv identified on then,b !arcxñ noticeó 1507m::u californian to learn that
4:58am
the truck about0jpyñ 10 feeti'xz8 from my store in front of my store,=aktq on%'o :(óqyfront street, not on californiayp street. and i have a!ñ+ñ photo here. if> the way it would face when ] >>p" t) +ld bexña and this is8ñahb the store, rightlvneux here. i=á e right by$jbxs the see, right there, kind of9 p]n leaves me speechless when/r our businesslsf8a0ñ on breakfast betweenag my requestkjjf=pv in light ofvv previode jf]d
4:59am
bathrooms& starbucks1+r grvz(ad$w o,hj2yo request is thaté% held in suspension pending rehearingç% dt!p& and& and final adoption of %ú ñb.n city plan for mobile food: operators that's u, review. thankj6 you. >>'cwzóçvj gasser adolfh7[jpcbp gasser inc., second?jc the reason i'm here is the nowú x earlier this year,aqjpjpz restriction us notice aboutvrhf&]' mynójp%fhfdjñ elevatorô!pñ doors -- >> you needlc tor overhead to havel%(úgz it displayed. thank0)c >>]6g;c

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)